HERE COMES even more evidence that IRS agents are the most presumptive breed of extortionists. Instead of using evidence or witnesses with personal firsthand knowledge to verify and/or prove that Marc’s client is, in fact, a taxpayer who has an obligation to file; the IRS presumes that “the information they have received from the payer” is reliable even if it is given under threat, duress, and coercion. They go one further by mischaracterizing Marc’s questions of the existence of the legally required facts that the IRS bases their accusations on as “frivolous jargon and garbage“. Not surprisingly, she doesn’t even understand the meaning of her own words when she arbitrarily deems questions frivolous. When asked if she “is an expert on the interpretation and application of the constitution and federal law“, she non-responsively answers by stating she is “following her directive, IRN’s, MIN’s, and instructions per her job that she has be doing for over 30 years“.
A desperate purse-snatcher is not so delusional to deny their actions as theft, yet these looters would suggest we perceive their notion of stealing honestly earned income, from an otherwise free social collective, as ethically sound and virtuous? Inconceivable! The philosophic coherence of the truly honorable Richard Rumbold cues perfectly to today’s tragedy of morally-sanctioned tyranny; “This is a deluded generation, veiled in ignorance, that though popery and slavery be riding in upon them, do not perceive it; though I am sure that there was no man born marked by God above another; for none comes into this world with a saddle on his back, neither any booted and spurred to ride him.“
December 28th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Just one small correction: “Income” in any legal sense are the earnings of a corporation, not a living, breathing person. So said the USSC in 1921 in MERCHANT’S LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA 255 US 509. Of course, not that this matters one jot in today’s lower courts who will simply laugh at it as if it never existed, but why play their game by calling it what it’s not? Just my 2 cents.
December 28th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Yo’s carefull Steve lest you run afoul of the full range of santions in Rule 38. Goto Wiki under Court treatment of frivlous arguments. Good luck. —-Pro. Mobutu Packabowlla. —
December 28th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Her face palm results in BRAIN DEAD stamped across her forehead. Just following the manual’s guidelines. Pretty much the same thing as “just following orders.” “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.” ~ Albert Einstein.
Marc, perhaps you could ask them: “What is a witness?” And, “What is evidence?” Probably better to ask, Someone at the IRS accused my client of being a taxpayer with taxable income, who is that witness and what facts in evidence do they have to support their accusation? Without a witness with first hand knowledge that XXX XXXX is a taxpayer with taxable income that accusation is frivolous and wholly without merit.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Just asking for evidence to establish facts… what or who is a taxpayer? How do you know so and so is a taxpayer without facts? Just VERY simple questions… Sir, would you please take a walk with me down the garden path…
December 28th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Teehee. Love the picture and word bubble, love the Princess Bride reference, love the call, love her brainwashed “garbage” of a rant, love your patience and humility. Love it!
December 29th, 2011 at 9:42 am
IF they don’t know what is meant by witness, I usually just state they are hardly qualified to make such legal determinations
December 29th, 2011 at 11:18 am
I love listening to Marc as he deals with these types of situations. In this case this officer is a moron as that term is defined. I can’t even consider this officer an intellectual moron because she is nothing but a pawn in the processes of the IRS. The questions Marc asked are so simple, and required for proceeding with a case. They eventually must come forward with this information as long as the question still gets to court. I would imagine the agents are dumb enough to put in their reports the “frivolous” questions asked. That sets up the IRS for the worst position in which to be and that is having lack of evidence and a witness to prove that a person was involved in a revenue taxable event, and their finding out it wasn’t a frivolous set of questions.
The word frivolous is the standard move of the IRS and for most people it tends to be the road block to getting anything done with the IRS, but you have got to continue in asking the right questions as regular IRS workers lack knowledge of what it means to owe a “specific” income tax. they are left with one assumption and that is that all income is the subject of the Income Tax law. Semantics comes to play in that the word income still means the same as it meant since the start of this nation, it is synonymous with profit and gain. Therefore in case law it is referred to as profit, gain, or income. The term income has not changed its true meaning it has just been perverted in its use like the word gay.
The congressional report of 1943 is pretty specific as to what is the subject of an Income Tax; House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580, “The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax”. Putting that into the record will goes a long way toward its consideration in court.
So, it boils down to what is the subject (activity taxed) of a specific Income Tax? Finding that should be a simple matter for the IRS as they just need to keep with the considerations of 6201 of the code and move forward with solid case law behind their endeavor to collect lawfully owed taxes. I have asked for years as to what activity it is they claim I have been doing. When they wanted me to bring in books for an audit I had to keep telling the agent I need to know what books to bring and she just wanted me to bring ALL my records and we would hash it out of that. I have not been contacted for 14 years and the statute time has ran out for their lien, which was unsatisfied. Regardless of that I will continue to ask for the specific tax they want me to pay because if I do in fact owe anything above and beyond all the taxes I already pay indirectly, I will gladly pay it. I just want to know if their tax claim is upon my person (direct tax on person), property (by reason of ownership), or an activity which is taxable as an excise for the revenue purposes of the United States government. The first two are direct tax situations according to the Pollock case of 1896. So they just need to let me know the activity being taxed. It would appear that only corporations can have income as that term is defined by law but that is not true, if a human being does something taxable for revenue purposes it doesn’t matter whether they are incorporated or not, it matters as to what the taxable event is from which a tax is owed. Reading http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_E.html and noting those liable for these taxes will help in understanding the law.
December 29th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
“30 years” – hmmm….time in a job is not a credential for doing something well.
December 29th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
use the paypal donation button, that shouldn’t be a problem
December 29th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
There is one where the agent says he’s been doing his job for 38 years, so I said, Great, then you’ll be able to answer the question.
He hung up on me
December 29th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Ask them to show you the law. What specific law requires a tax on personal wages. Filling out a W-2 is voluntary, and is what obligates you to pay.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
I’ve wondered myself about this “excise tax” conundrum. What is the activity that is being taxed as measured by income?
December 30th, 2011 at 6:32 am
Here’s an idea to consider One can use the IRS’s own code against them by simply pointing out that whatever report was sent was not signed ‘penalty under perjury’ (United States Code [USC] Title 26 §6065). Therefore it is invalid.
December 31st, 2011 at 4:26 pm
The point is not what the legal definition of “income” via the code is, but who is the witness to the facts of reality which supposedly bring that legal definition into a situation of legitimately applying to the defendant. That is a burden of demonstration inherent to any charge/claim/assessment.
December 31st, 2011 at 5:00 pm
@joebanana: I think you mean W-4 not W-2.
December 31st, 2011 at 5:06 pm
This conversation illustrates so BEAUTIFULLY their desparate need to avoid assuming ANY burden of proof, and how much it bails them out for anyone to make a counter-argument instead of simply expect they demonstrate what is their burden to demonstrate (evidence, jurisdiciton, standing, etc.)
December 31st, 2011 at 5:13 pm
And as an adjunct, having just now finished hearing this conversation, this lady is a prime example of the subintellectual baboons government requires in order to survive. WHAT a robotic, uninformed, utterly WORTHLESS moron.
December 31st, 2011 at 5:22 pm
@Alex Knight: Just one small correction: I think its “moran“.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:16 pm
1) Are you a witness against my client?
2) What is the name, title, mailing location of the person responsible for issuing the notice sent to my client?
3) What is the name, title, mailing location of the person responsible for making the assessment against my client?
4) Under what specific authority was an assessment made against my client?
5) What taxable activity does the person making the assessment claim my client partisipated in?
6) What specific dates and times does the assessor claim my client was partisipating in a taxable activity?
7) …………………………. for f’n ever
“I’ve been robing and pillaging people for 30 years, I am MASTER and people are my SLAVES for 30 years, I will kill my fellow Man for a paycheck, I am a good NAZI for 30 years, I don’t know and I don’t know that I don’t know for 30 years, I pay because I get benefits, you pay because I get benefits, if you do not pay for your benefits I will render more papers with words to kill you with, pay or die”
December 31st, 2011 at 9:43 pm
I understand that there is no “witness” at least not a competent one that a court would recognize. That’s what blow me away about the IRS worker calling Marc’s reasoning frivolous. That is exactly what she is doing. I’ve read enough court cases to be able to read between the lines when the court says “without merit” or “frivolous” they mean no facts to base the complaint/claim on.
Maybe the first thing you should do Marc is familirize the IRS clown with United States v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297 – Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1977
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11488568483122934585
This case didn’t go so good for the IRS.
Here’s the juicy part.
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.
Supra, p. 1032.
From the facts we find that the agent’s failure to apprise the appellant of the obvious criminal nature of this investigation was a sneaky deliberate deception by the agent under the above standard and a flagrant disregard for appellant’s rights. The silent misrepresentation was both intentionally misleading and material. Any findings to the contrary under the facts of this case are clearly erroneous.”
Maybe you should also tell the agent you plan an prosecuting the alleged witness for slander and that if they don’t cough up a name the will be the ones going to court for making claims that are defamatory and without any factual basis.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:59 pm
indio007
In response to your question:
Q:I’ve wondered myself about this “excise tax” conundrum. What is the activity that is being taxed as measured by income?
A:The Socialist Insecurity trust accompanied with what they call a ‘trade or business’ which is defined as ‘the functions of a public office’
(See26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(26).
The Internal Revenue Code is an indirct excise tax on privileged activities one carries on with the ‘government’. Always has been.
People feeding at the federal trough putting a strain on others at ‘public expense’.
This is why EVERY single time Marc has a ‘client’ and calls them up the first two things they want and ask for from the ‘client’ is.
NAME
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
Once a number is given it is a done deal. Your a member. You are in possesion of government property. That being the number and corresponding CARD.Now you are a ‘fiduciary’ over government property. No ‘witness’ is needed. One cannot simultaneously confirm and deny. How does anyone think they keep record of the transactions of the TRUST account? Goodness.
Test it out if you do not believe it. Try calling them up and getting them to ‘help’ you WITHOUT giving them the slave survaillance number and see what happens. Tell them you NEVER filed a return in your life but at times exchange your labor for something of value or sometimes for something of no value at all.
The slave number is the GATEWAY into the tax scheme.
Joebanana.
With regards to your post it is the W-4 that is voluntary. The W-2 is what you recieve at the end of a ‘tax year’. A W-4 is when you ‘elect’ to call what you earn ‘wages’ as legally defined but not commonly understood. See 26 CFR 31.3401, 26 CFR 31.3402 under “Voluntary Withholding Agreements”. If you do not fill out ANY W-4 you should not be in reciept of a W-2 at the end of the ‘taxable year’.
All of these things are well established in law to wit;
Proverbs 23:1-3
King James Version (KJV)
Proverbs 23
1When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee:
2And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite.
3Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat.
Do a ‘mock’ call Marc and have a buddy pose as your ‘client’ with no number and see how fast they can do nothing with your ‘client’/buddy.
What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it. [Maxim of 'law']
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:18 am
IRS agent’s definition of an argument: Whenever a person questions them.
January 4th, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Marc,
You may have addressed before but these agents often refer to the W-2 or 1099 and use that as their excuse that someone is a “taxpayer” (or blue unicorn for that matter). They then throw up their hands and say “see, someone else said he has ‘taxable income’ so he does; that’s our story and we’re sticking with it.” Have you ever considered contacting someone’s employer, who generated the W-2 and questioning them about the W-2 and getting a statement that they have no clue what “taxable income” is?
January 4th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Yes, been doing that for a while now, drives them crazy. I always get them to commit the employer/vendor is the only witness they rely on and then hit them with the statement from payroll they are not qualified to make legal determinations and only issued the tax forms out of fear of going to jail.
They HATE those statements.
January 10th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Marc, did you know that:
To cite any IRS Publications as authority, which even the IRS says is not a good idea. By way of clarification, the below insert from and IRS publication within the enclosures are not authoritative references, but simply informal policy guidance:
“IRS Publications, issued by the National Office, explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors… While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position.”
[Internal Revenue Manual, Section 4.10.7.2.8 (05-14-1999)] Chp 9 s11
They cant even use their own Publication in court cause it is so fraudulent
January 15th, 2012 at 3:14 am
“your such an expert,….” the opposing Atty stated , into a facist attitude; and then I interrupted quickly: “It has not been determined in this venue that I am in fact evedently an expert at all, right?”
(silent moment was effectual to my “to wit:…”.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:22 am
Minimum Contacts: “A doctrine referring to the minimum due process requirement for subjecting a non-resident civil defendant to a court’s personal jurisdiction. The defendant must have sufficient CONTACTS with the forum state.” International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 US. 310, 66 c.c. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95.
“Allegiance is a duty owing by citizens to their government, of which, so long as they enjoy its BENEFITS, they can NOT divest themselves.” Military Government and Martial Law, William E. Birkhimer, Major, General Staff, U.S. Army, 1914, page 64).
The ‘contacts’ and ‘benefits’ are many.
Some examples of ‘minimum contacts’ are as follows: any government identification, drivers license, social security number (also called Social Insurance Number in Canada, or S.I.N. for short); voter registration card; free delivery of mail to your home, business, or Post Office box; bank accounts and loans; credit cards; government or corporate employment; insurance policies; automobile registration; property registration; or any other token of a benefit, privilege, immunity, or opportunity from the opposition (the unclean things), will contradict and nullify your Godly witness. When one accepts a benefit of the State, one accepts the control of the State as well. [Richard Anthony]
A couple other things not mentioned are CLAIMING atatutory ‘U.S. citizen’ or ‘resident’ which is what and to whom all those ‘benefits’ can be issued to. If you are not a ‘citizen’ you cannot ‘enjoy’ any ‘benefits’ from them.
He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it.
He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden.
He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage.
Also written in their law is;
Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit.
God bless
January 17th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Allegiance without a duty to protect, is no allegiance. Also, most benefits are mandatory.
I agree we all need to limit our contacts, the problem is how to do so, just using the interwebs can be considered a benefit.
January 17th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
What if they say they are qualified? and say they are a lawyer or have schooling to make them an expert?
January 17th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Great, I usually start by asking them what the constitution is factually. If they are experts and qualified, then they’ll be able to tell me what the const. is and the facts connecting us to it.
I have never had one able to tell me what the const. is factually.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Oh ok..I understand. One of the classes I’m taking this last semester (in order to get one of my minors, which is GOVT.) is American Constitutional History, so it’ll be interesting what I learn. I could even bring up some of this stuff in class.
January 18th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Hi Marc and God’s peace to you.
You state;
“Also, most benefits are mandatory”.
This is simply not true. One very simple way to tell if it is ‘mandatory’ or voluntary is this. Do they request your signature? That is it. You do not need to sign a document saying you wont steal. Or murder. However, you are requested for that ‘Jon Hancock’ for every license, contract, and ‘benefit’ they want you to have.
Take a look at a drvers license. It has a signature.
Social Security cards..you have to SIGN for them. None of these are ‘mandatory’. No one has EVER forced you or anyone else to physically go down to the DMV or Social Security office and SIGN up for the socialist handouts.
And on TOP of that they piggy back their ‘benefits’ with other ‘benefits’ they want you to ‘have’. This is why these ‘benefits are only issued to ‘Citizens’ and ‘residents’. This is why I posted the site below. Not to talk about ‘duties’ and ‘allegience’ per say but to show you that ‘citizenship’ is another ‘benefit’.
“Allegiance is a duty owing by CITIZENS to their government, of which, so long as they enjoy its BENEFITS, they can NOT divest themselves.” Military Government and Martial Law, William E. Birkhimer, Major, General Staff, U.S. Army, 1914, page 64).
This is why as long as anyone runs around with their handouts they got you by the balls.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS
PART2 .CONTRACTS
CHAPTER3. CONSENT
Section 1589
section 1589. A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.
” The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.”FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351. [Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]
Why do people lose in ‘tax court’ when they bring in a ‘constitutional’ argument. SEE ABOVE
Something else I would like to bring to the peoples attention is this..
“Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including income, property, and death taxes. [Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)]
Here we see an ‘adequate basis for taxation is RESIDENCE or DOMICILE’! These are substantially synonyms. What else has the court said on this matter?
“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship [domicile] to the agencies of government.”[City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944]
“Citizenship,” “habitancy,” and “residence” are severally words which in particular cases may mean precisely the same as “domicile,” while in other uses may have different meanings.
“Residence” signifies living in particular locality while “domicile” means living in that locality with INTENT to make it a fixed and permanent home. Schreiner v. Schreiner, Tex.Civ.App., 502 S.W.2d 840, 843.
For purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction, “citizenship” and “domicile” are synonymous. Hendry v. Masonite Corp., C.A.Miss., 455 F.2d 955. [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485]
‘Citizenship’ is another ‘benefit’. Social security cards can only be issued to ‘citizens’ and ‘residents’. Same with the licenses and such.
They are not ‘mandatory’ as you say Marc. I dont have or use one. They belong to ‘uncle sam’. we got to stick with the truth my friend. Saying ‘citizens’ and ‘states’ do not exist is fine. But we need to walk in what we claim.One cannot use the ‘VOLUNTARY benefits’ that can ONLY be issued to the ‘citizens’ you say are not real. Otherwise hypocrasy can be found and the ‘no state project’ dwindles to little more than entertainment and a profit geared thing.
God bless.
January 18th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
@ Damon You should call the show. For now, the idea it is voluntary if a signature is required is not true. We know a tax return must be signed and is not voluntary.
January 19th, 2012 at 3:49 am
I would think a signature on a SS card would be invalid for entering a contract anyway. It only has one signature (not both parties) and you don’t have to be an adult to sign it. Is there even a date spot for when you’ve signed it?
January 19th, 2012 at 9:34 am
There is no full disclosure and no valid consideration
January 19th, 2012 at 10:24 am
I agree, damon, you should call into the show. Or at the very least join the forum Marc has set up here. You clearly have a lot to say and both of those would be better mediums of communication and exchange than posting large blocks of text in this section. On the forum you’ll have all the space you need to really flesh out your thoughts and discuss with other people.
Just a suggestion.
January 19th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Hi all and God bless.
I just seen the forum at the top. Thanks. Sorry about the large posts.
” For now, the idea it is voluntary if a signature is required is not true. We know a tax return must be signed and is not voluntary.”
I have lightly touched on the ‘tax return’. I have focused more on the ‘BENEFITS’ part than the ‘tax returns’. To better understand the ‘tax returns’ we have to first understand the ‘benefits’ that people are partaking of. It is how they track you as a ‘trustee’ of a ‘public trust’, the Social Security trust. Social Security IS voluntary and even says so right on the Social Security website.
It is no ‘idea’ but simple truth. People either use the benefits or they do not.
The ‘tax return’ comes AFTER the voluntary withholding agreement called the W-4. That IS the voluntary one. I have posted about it before.
Thanks, I am gonna hop on the forums.
What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.
January 22nd, 2012 at 10:51 pm
I’m just curious if you follow any of the Creditors in Commerce stuff. Very similar ideals used in a different way I’m suspecting. Every interaction is a contract. CIC uses a little bit different approach…as opposed to calling the IRS they simply document all interactions with notaries and public filing of records. I noticed someone else mentioned it above even that silence can only be equated with fraud. I strict contractual terms silence is also the same as acceptance.
Say for example you acquire the agent you are dealing with’s name, address or other information and you send them a “contract offer”. Something to the effect of “If you will provide me the information I am asking, I will gladly pay all taxes owed. If the information is not provided I will consider you attempting to perpetrate a fraud against my client and you will be charged(make it 5 times the taxes they are claiming or something) “. While you are asking for witnesses and proof that your client is a tax payer.
I’m sure my wording isn’t exactly what might be needed, but the bottom line is any correspondence without a response is simply an acceptance of the contract offer. As long as it’s documented(notary) and filed in public(the county recorders office if needed).
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:36 pm
I stay away from that stuff
January 23rd, 2012 at 7:25 am
Hi Richard and peace unto you.
Consider wisely Richard,
Unalienable: “Incapable of being transferred. Things which are NOT IN COMMERCE as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1914), page 3350.
Unalienable: The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. Things which are NOT IN COMMERCE as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1959), Vol.2, p.610.
If you receive a benefit, the government expects a return from you. Thus, the Income Tax Return is the money they collect from you for the ‘services’ they are giving you at your request. Again, this is commercial activity.
Let’s examine the concept of a ‘benefit’ in Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988.
Benefit: “Profit.” Page 129.
Profit: “Gain, advantage, BENEFIT.” Page 1074.
Income: “Gain or BENEFIT received.” Page 683.
Capital: “Any source of BENEFIT.” Page 207.
Merchant: “A person whose business is buying and selling goods for PROFIT.” Page 843.
Commercialize: “To make use of mainly for profit at a SACRAFICE of other VALUES.” Page 280.
Mercury: “God of commerce. Cleverness. THIEVERY.” Page 848.
By accepting a benefit, one is receiving gain, capital, income, and profit. If you’re receiving a profit, you are a merchant, which means you are engaged in commercial activity, which means you are a thief, because you are making a profit at a “sacrifice of other values.” And if you are sacrificing Godly values to make a profit, you cannot serve God.
Matthew 6:24, “…Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
January 26th, 2012 at 12:44 am
If we have the right to contract, and the right to not contract, that is one organization I’d love to exercise my right to not contract.
Employer reports the wages. IRS calls it income. Income is usually money earned for a business. People have a right to work. That doesn’t include an obligation to pay taxes for their right to work to live.
Work is performing services and receiving a salary.
Salary is a reward or recompense for services rendered.
How on earth can an organization have a right to tax a reward?
they can’t. So they force us to accept their statement it’s income and that force can be pretty nasty. Liens or levy on your actual salary if you don’t agree with them. Then you are forced to file in the US Tax Court to get them off your back.
Unconscionable contracts are void ab initio, but you have to jump through a bunch of hoops individually to try to prove you are forced to contract with that organization on a yearly basis against your Free Will. If you don’t contract with them, they audit the non-existent contract and come after for not contracting with them.
Talk about peonage for a debt they create for failure to file.
How on earth did we allow this organization to be created and to continue to exist is beyond me. We need a David for this Goliath.
From Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition:
“Unconscionable bargain or contract. A contract, or a clause in a contract, that is so grossly unfair to one of the parties because of stronger bargaining powers of the other party, usually held to be void as against public policy. An unconscionable bargain or contract is one which no man in his senses, not under delusion, would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other. Hume v. U.S., 132 U.S. 406, 10 S. Ct. 134, 33 L. Ed. 393.” [emphasis added]
January 27th, 2012 at 9:18 am
Since the agents don’t seem to want to be helpful anymore and are not wanting to stop levies, I’m wondering, would it be appropriate at the beginning of these so called “hearings” to just ask if the so called “tax payer” was entitled to a fair hearing, followed by the question, could he/she get a fair hearing if it was discovered that there was a conflict of interest, followed by who do you work for? Oh, you work for the same outfit trying to steal my client’s money, how is that not a conflict of interest?
January 28th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=234917,00.html
One way is to tell them of the unconstitutionality of their ‘civil penalties’ and the unconscionable contracts of Undue Influence their employees create by their levies.
Their pamphlet it titled Intent to Seize Property or Rights to Property.
How treasonous is that?
You can’t rob one of an unalienable Right to Property. It has to be given to you, and by the nature of it being unalienable, it can’t even be given to you in amnesia nor insanity.
The People are sovereign. You can’t tell a People; “Because I’m an IRS agent I declare you are less than a People, you have no Free Will. You are a person, an individual, a taxpayer, subject to my Will and my Will is that you pay taxes “voluntarily” and I will ensure your voluntary compliance by my levy of your property via this garnishment order against your salary/recompense/reward you received for the services you provided your employer!” Huh?
While they are at it, they might as well through in. “I am YOUR God! I Am your Creator! I demand you contract with me every year and abide by the will of my agents, every year; or there will be Hell to pay, but pay us first!”
I’m being facetious (not meant to be taken seriously or literally), but there is a lot of truth in that distortion for those that have eyes and can see.
February 1st, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Has anyone every gone to jail/prison or ended up still paying taxes after using the stuff Marc uses?